Huyen Tran Nguyen Ho
Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture ESST MA 2012 - University of Oslo
Managing Results
A case study of two Norwegian development organizations:
The Norwegian Church Aid and Norfund
© Ho Nguyen Huyen Tran [email protected] Science and Politics in Controversies on Nature European Studies of Society, Science, and Technology Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture University of Oslo October 2012 Supervisor: Hilde Reinertsen Word count: 21 382
Common sense is not so common - François-Marie Arouet (Voltaire)
Preface
This thesis is a study of how NCA and Norfund prepare and present results. It also explores how numbers as political technologies influence the context in which the organizations are a part of, and how it affects their understanding and presentation of results. The aim is to investigate the responses NCA and Norfund have to the increasing demands for measureable results.
Using Erving Goffman’s concepts of back- and front stage, I explore the preparations and demonstrations the organizations use to portray their competence. Kristin Asdal’s study of political technologies is deployed to widen the scope, investigating how the organizations interact with numbers in the form of statistics.
The focus of this study is not to examine the outcomes themselves, but how NCA and Norfund have chosen to collect, interpret, translate, and disseminate results. As we shall see, the demands for measurability in NCA and Norfund are driven forward by the state, but also by the organizations themselves. The call for more aggregated numbers and statistics are experienced as both challenging and necessary by the organizations, as reporting on results promotes learning, but also demands for the renewing of routines and more resources. Also, the organizations find the translating of social processes to fit a technical framework difficult.
Nevertheless, the popularity of measurable results continues to grow.
Key words: backstage, front stage, political technologies, development cooperation, measurability, Norwegian Church Aid, Norwegian Investment Fund for Developing Countries, STS
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my greatest gratitude to the people who have helped and supported me throughout my project.
First and foremost, I am sincerely grateful to my supervisor, Hilde Reinertsen for her support and guidance during my writing. Her feedbacks, insights, and support have been invaluable throughout the process.
Secondly, as this thesis is largely based on interviews, I would like take this
opportunity to thank the informants at Norad, the Norwegian Church Aid, and Norfund for taking the time and meet with me.
Furthermore, I would like to thank Kate Newman for proofreading and for her never- ending patience. I also want to thank Simen E, Gjermund, and Eric for their contributions and feedback, and my friends for reminding me of the world beyond the study halls, and that
“everything is going to be ok”.
A very special thanks to my dear family: for being my biggest fans, and for always believing in me. To mom and dad: Xin dành sự biết ơn đến bố mẹ yêu và các anh và em trai thương vì đã luôn luôn hỗ trợ và tin tưởng vào tôi.
Last but not least, I would like to thank Simen B. for staying by my side throughout this journey.
The thesis as presented is my own original work, and I take full responsibility for any remaining misunderstandings and shortcomings.
Table of Contents
PREFACE VII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IX
ABBREVIATIONS XV
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Results takes a front seat in development cooperation 2
1.2 Thesis structure 3
1.3 Research Questions 4
2 RESEARCH METHOD AND DESIGN 9
2.1 Case study 9
2.2 Using textual data as analytical material 10
2.3 Interviews 11
2.4 Methodological remarks and reflections 14
3 INTRODUCING KEY ORGANIZATIONS 17
3.1 The Norwegian Church Aid 17
3.1.1 Background 17
3.1.2 Division for Program Quality 19
3.1.3 Context and Framework: Norad and MFA 20
3.2 Norfund 21
3.2.1 Background 21
3.2.2 Division for Strategy and Analysis 24
3.2.3 Context and framework: Norfund and MFA 24
3.3 Summary 25
4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 29
4.1 Goffman’s dramaturgical analysis 30
4.2 Numbers as political technology 32
4.2.1 What is politics of technology? 32
4.2.2 Numbers as political technologies 33
4.2.3 Numbers as trust and objectivity 34
4.3 Theories applied to case 35
5 WORKING WITH RESULTS 39
5.1 Backstage: Understanding results and exploring routines for gathering results 39
5.1.1 Perception of results 40
5.1.2 Guidelines for gathering results 44
5.1.3 Gathering results 46
5.2 Front stage: Presenting results 49
5.2.1 Web based material 50
5.2.2 Published material 51
5.2.3 Layout: the use of colors and images 57
5.3 Summary 61
6 THE INTERACTION BETWEEN POLICIES, DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATIONS AND RESULTS 62
6.1 The state and policy makers as main audience 62
6.2 The state and policy makers as debate forum 65
6.3 The complexities and challenges of results 69
6.4 Summary 73
7 CONCLUSION 76
7.1 Limitations and further research 80
REFERENCES 83
APPENDIXES
Appendix 1 - Interview list 93
Appendix 2 – Interview guide, evaluation 94
Appendix 3 – Interview Guide, communication 100
Appendix 4 – Attended seminars and meetings 102
Appendix 5 – Norwegian Church Aid, Selected Output Indicators (SOIs) 103
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 - NCA's Global Programs 18
Figure 3.2 - Norfund's Project Cycle 22
Figure 5.1- Example of tables addressing NCA's thematic issues 41
Figure 5.2 - Norfund's Development Indicators 42
Figure.5.3 – Norfund and NCA’s web site in English 50
Figure.5.4 – Global Reports on Results 2011 (NCA) 52
Figure.5.5 - Example of annual report and operational report (Norfund) 55
Figure.5.6 - Norfund's selection funnel 56
Figure 5.7 - A selection of pages from different annual reports (NCA) 57 Figure 5.8 - Examples of images used in NCA's reporting 58
Figure 5.9- Examples of images used by Norfund 59
Abbreviations
ACT - Action by Churches Together for Development aFDB - African Development Bank
BIO - Belgian Investment Company for Developing Countries BMI SBI - Belgium Cooperation for International Investment CoC - Code of Conduct (NCA)
COFIDES - Compañía Española de Financiación del Desarrollo (Spanish DFI) DAC - Development Assistance Committee (OECD)
DEG - Deutche Investitions und Entwicklungsgeselleschaft (German DFI) DIP - Division for International Programmes (NCA)
FinnFund - Finnish Fund for Industrial Cooperation Ltd EDFI - European Development Finance Institutions ESG - Environmental, Social and Governmental (Norfund) DFI - Development Finance Institution
FBO - Faith Based Organisations (NCA)
HAP - Humanitarian Accountability Partnership
GMDA - Grant Facility Manager & Development Advisor (Norfund) IFC - International Finance Corporation
LDC - Least Developed Countries LFA - Logical Framework Approach MF - Ministry of Finance
MFA - Ministry of Foreign Affairs NCA - Norwegian Church Aid
NGO - Non-Governmental Organisation
Norfund - Norwegian Investment Fund for Developing Countries Norad - Norwegian Agency for Development
OEP - The Electronic Public Reports (Offtenlig Elektronisk Postjournal) OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PME - Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (NCA)
PQ - Division for Programme Quality (NCA)
ProParco - Promotion et de Participation pour la Coopération Economique (French DFI) RBM - Results-Based Management
SA - Division for Strategy and Analysis (Norfund)
SIDA - Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SIFEM - The Swiss Investment Fund for Emerging Markets SME - Small Medium Funds (Norfund)
SOI - Selected Output Indicator (NCA)
STS - Science, Technology and Society Studies UN - United Nations
WBG - World Bank Group
1 Introduction
In 2011, I was offered an internship in Vietnam with the Norwegian Church Aid (NCA). For six months, I was included in the work and daily life of the NCA Country Office (CO) in Hue. Knowing very little about the development cooperation, I left the world I knew for a short while to experience a new one. Fluent in English and Norwegian, and able to
communicate in Vietnamese, I still remember the first days feeling alien; for what in the world was a LFA, a PME, and a HAP? How many pigs produced enough manure for a biogas tank to work? What were the best indicators to measure social effects of gender equality, climate change or advocacy? A year has passed since then, and although my vocabulary has expanded, and I now know how many pigs a family need in order to fill a biogas tank (currently 4-8), I still have no answer for how to measure social effects. Do you count the number of women who participate in a certain program? Do you count the numbers of trees planted? How can we know if a petition has had any political influence? Do these indicators say anything about development and its outcomes?
Back in Norway, questions about results in development cooperation continued to intrigue me. In the media, politicians and the broader public were questioning methods of development cooperation and results (Haugen, 2009; Hustad, 2010; Tvedten, 2010; Gaarder
& Snilstveit, 2010, Sommerfeldt, 2011; Salvesen, 2011; 2012; Witoszek, 2012; Grande, 2012). What stood out for me was when NCA published an evaluation of the European Development Finance Institutions (EDFI). The Norwegian Investment Fund for Developing Countries (Norfund) was also included. Concluding that the development indicators used were too simple, and the report encouraged the EDFIs to replace present practice with a more extensive one. The current indicators: the number of employees, female employees, and tax
paid, were not considered good enough for assessing development effects (Bracking &
Ganho, 2011). NCA’s critique of the EDFIs and Norfund immediately sparked a debate.
Shortly after the report was published, Norfund’s Managing Director replied saying NCA’s way of thinking was permeated by a “Washington Consensus” mindset, as their methods were outdated and limited (Tømte, 2011). From these discussions, and from what I understood, there was no unanimous agreement on what counted as “result” in the
development sector. The relationship between development cooperation schemes and results appeared complex: as important it was to show what work had been achieved, there was an increased need to quantify and compare social processes that seemed impossible to measure.
This became the starting point for my thesis, as I wish to explore how NCA and Norfund understand and respond to these increasing demands for results, and how they communicate their results to the public. I am interested in exploring results itself, as it is not only an
outcome, but in many regards also a central part of organizational structure and management.
1.1 Results takes a front seat in development cooperation
Since its inception, development assistance and cooperation has been an issue of public debate, and discussions have centered on what targets should be assessed and how this should be measured (Riddell, 2007). In Norway, official institutions such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and the Norwegian Agency for Development (Norad) have encouraged development organizations to give quantitative results more attention (MFA, 2004; Norad, 2012a). As Norad stresses in their 2011 Annual Report: “The NGOs [Non-Governmental Organizations, ed.] should develop their capacity for expansion and focus on the program components where the results are clear and positive” (Norad, 2012c, p. 37). As MFA and
Norad are the main financial contributors to many development organizations in Norway, it becomes important for organizations to meet these national guidelines in order to maintain support and funds.
Results-based management (RBM) has for the last years become a central part of development cooperation. However, the organizations face great challenges, as social
development and change is complex and difficult to quantify and measure (Li, 1999; Phillips
& Edwards, 2000; Riddell, 2007). The increased focus on results and quantification in development cooperation is interesting from a Science, Technology and Society (STS) perspective, as it illustrates how numbers can lead to changes in policy making and the development sector. Such change gives the organizations incentives to rethink and reinvent current practices for collecting and presenting results, as it forces them to think about how the organizations carry out their work. It also raises an interesting question regarding the current development: for how do the organizations respond to these increased demands of
demonstrating quantitative results?
1.2 Thesis structure
This thesis aims at exploring the political technologies of numbers by taking a deeper look at how organizations perceive and adapt to increased demands for measureable results from a STS perspective. Studying how numbers are not only understood as passive objects in reports and statistics, it is revealed that they are also active contributors to the evolution of
development cooperation. Exploring the organizations’ routines, methods, and perspectives on results, this study will show how the understanding and forming of this has as much to do with historical, cultural, and social aspects as with political frameworks.
For this study, I have chosen to focus on two Norwegian development organizations: NCA and Norfund. Despite differences in practice and work, both have to adhere to the general guidelines given from national institutions. While NCA is a typical NGO working with advocacy and humanitarian aid, Norfund is an investment fund with a mandate to reduce poverty in developing countries through business investments. It is these differences that make a comparison of the two organizations particularly interesting.
The thesis is divided into seven chapters. The first chapter provides an introduction, presenting readers with both structure and research questions. The second chapter presents the thesis’ methodology and design. This serves to narrow the scope and structure the assignment. The third chapter gives a short presentation of the key organizations, and the fourth presents the theoretical framework. Here, the reader will be introduced to concepts such as front- and backstage and the political technologies. Chapter five takes a closer look at the empirical data. We begin with the organizations’ routines and understanding of results, before studying how they present their data. In the sixth chapter, I will explore the
relationship and interaction between the state and these organizations, and also take a closer look at the challenges of reporting on measureable results. The final chapter will summarize findings and present concluding remarks.
1.3 Research Questions
In relation to the increased demands for results, both Norfund and NCA are signaling
improvements on current reporting systems (Berge, 2012; Frengstad, 2012). As mentioned in Chapter 1.2, although the organizations do have different methods of work, they still have to report on their activities according to the general guidelines given by the government.
Regardless of how the organizations have chosen to meet these demands they face the same challenges: social development has proven difficult to measure.
As this study aims at exploring how NCA and Norfund perceive and present results, it is important to explain the particular denotation of “results” in the context of this study. The terms “result” and “evaluation” is often used intertwined as they are closely related.
Throughout this thesis, “result” indicates to the outcome of a consequence. Hence, how NCA and Norfund report on results refers to the gathering of data, and connecting it to project effects and outcomes. For instance, the X numbers of malaria vaccines has decreased X numbers malaria related diseases, or the X number of work places increased the general income in a certain region with X percent. Evaluation refers to the assessments done either before, during or after a project is initiated: will the investment be profitable? Does the women’s workshop contribute to the reduction of domestic violence? Were the projects effective? In an evaluation process, results are often used as indicators to see if the projects are successful or not. For clarification, the focus of this study is to take a closer look at how NCA and Norfund organize their work, and the challenges the organizations meet when trying to make results measureable.
Although the debate between NCA and Norfund have calmed down in public, how to evaluate and measure results is continuously discussed between actors working with
development. While the debates between the organizations in 2011 is important for
understanding the gap between them, this thesis study the understanding of results within the organizations, and how they respond to the increased demand for results. Because MFA and Norad influence the practices upheld within NCA and Norfund, this relationship will also be included in the thesis. In this relation, it will be interesting to see how NCA and Norfund chose to interpret and adjust to the guidelines given by the state. Specifically, the aim of this thesis is to answer the following research questions:
1) How do NCA and Norfund understand and present results?
2) How do numbers as a political technology influence the context in which the organizations are a part of, and in what way does this affect how the actors understand and present results?
The first research question mainly addresses the routines within the two development organizations. Gaining an insight of the internal process will also provide a useful frame of reference further in the analysis, as what happens backstage is closely related to the context surrounding the organizations and their front stage work. Studying the internal routines for collecting information, the first question will analyze how the collected information is translated and transformed to reach the public.
Research question two is more explorative. Inspired by Kristin Asdal’s work regarding the influence of economic science in her study of nature, I take a closer look at how numbers as a political technology help shape, unite, and distance the two organizations. While the organizations agree on methods for measuring and reporting on results to a certain extent, their differences on this matter creates a space between the organizations. The second research question will focus on how NCA and Norfund have responded to the increased demands for more quantitative results. Given that the two organizations have to follow similar guidelines from national institutions, it is worth noting how NCA and Norfund have developed different sets for conducting and presenting results. As useful as they might be, working with results in development cooperation is an informative but also frustrating process.
2 Research method and design
2.1 Case study
According to Yin, a case study is preferred in empirical investigations when research questions are exploratory in nature and are formulated as “how” or “why” questions. They should also be a study of contemporary phenomena with no clear boundary between a phenomenon and context. This prevents the investigator from taking control or manipulating data (Yin, 2009, pp. 9 – 11). It is worth noting that this definition has been found
problematic, as it excludes past historic phenomena (Ragin, 2001).1 A broader definition is found in Ringdal (2007). Here, a case study is understood as the investigations of one or many cases in form of individuals, families, organizations, countries, decisions, or events (Ringdal, 2007, pp. 149 – 150).
A case study is highly dependent on a clear research question and solid theoretical framework, as this lays the foundation for further investigation and validity (Punch, 2006;
Yin, 2009). The strength of a case study lies in its ability to study an event in its wholeness, using multiple data sources and collection methods. However, case studies have also been criticized for their lack of ability to verify or trace data backwards (Yin, 2009; Punch, 2005).
There is also the danger of ecological fallacies due to weak data (Ringdal, 2007, pp. 163 - 164). An imperative for qualitative studies is therefore to follow a research protocol with an extensive description of how the research has been conducted when collecting, analyzing and reporting results (Yin, 2009). At the initial phase of this study, a project outline, research questions, and interview guide were created. While the research questions were presented in
1 Yin published his first book in 1984 (Yin, 2009, p. ix). The book used in this thesis is the 4th edition (2009).
Chapter 1.3, the project outline, case definition, and data collection process will be presented throughout this chapter. Interview guides are listed as Appendix 2 and 3.
The design of a case influences also the sample selection. A study of few cases is usually combined with quantitative investigations. Ringdal (2007, p. 157) makes a distinction between serial case studies, in which samples are not chosen in advance, and multiple case studies, in which samples are chosen in advance. Because NCA and Norfund were chosen in advance, makes this thesis a multiple case study. The organizations were chosen for their relevancy and accessibility. As both organizations were visible in the media last year
discussing topics of results, NCA and Norfund’s different approach to development work and results seemed as an interesting point of departure. In addition, both organizations are located in Oslo, making them more accessible in terms of contact and visiting.
2.2 Using textual data as analytical material
Observations, personal interviews, and text analysis are often recognized as qualitative methods for collecting data (Punch, 2005). While numerical data give information on the amounts and distribution of phenomena, textual data explores meanings and intentions (Johannesen, Tufte & Kristofferen, 2006, p. 56). Texts may include letters, e-mail
correspondences, personal documents, agendas, meeting minutes, administrative proposals, reports, formal studies, news clippings, and other articles (Yin, 2009, p. 103; Asdal, 2008c).
Documentary analysis has been a useful tool for examining Norfund and NCA’s work for reporting and presenting results. Such inside information can be valuable for an
investigator, as all textual sources are a result of human activity produced on the basis of certain ideas, theories, or commonly accepted principles located within social, historical, or administrative structures (Punch, 2005, p. 226). Texts and interview printouts are has therefore been an important part of my investigation cycle, as language conveys particular
meanings and experiences (Punch, 2005). As the amount of material can be overwhelming, data reduction becomes a critical part of conducting effective research (Ringdal, 2007).
When collecting texts, the main focus was to access the annual reports of NCA and Norfund.
In addition, Norfund also published a report on operations, which was included to the data collection. Reports were found online through the organizations’ websites. The oldest reports available online are from 2004/2005 for NCA, and 2007/2008 for Norfund. Because the shift to increased demands has been recent, the material is considered sufficient for exploring how the organizations understand results today. White Paper No. 35 (MFA, 2004), and Norad’s external evaluation of NCA and Norfund have also been included as data. In addition to texts, I have also explored the organizations’ web based material and the organizations’ use of images and colors schemes, as these is an important part of how NCA and Norfund portray their public profile. In Norfund’s case, special attention was devoted to “development effects” and “development indicators”, and how these were portrayed. For NCA’s Global Strategy Report 2011 – 2015 (NCA, 2011a) and Report on Results 2011 (NCa, 2012a) were of special interest, as new strategies and global indicators are presented. NCA’s new strategy will be further presented in Chapter 3.
2.3 Interviews
In addition to textual analysis, interviews are useful when studying people’s perceptions, meanings, definitions of situations, and comprehension of reality (Punch, 2005, p. 168). In terms of design, interviews can be divided into three types: the structured (questionnaires), the semi-structured (loosely structured, content-focused talks), and the unstructured (open- ended talks) (Punch, 2005, p. 169; Hay, 2010, pp. 101 - 111). Interviews give the ability to focus directly on the relevant study topic, and provide the researcher with valuable insight on
an event or phenomena. However, potential pitfalls include poorly articulated questions, biased responses, and inaccurate information due to poor recollection, personal chemistry, or other circumstantial factors (Yin, 2009, p 102). Yin has also listed the lack of reflexivity as a weakness as it can make the research biased. Although biases are inevitable, I believe the awareness of one’s position and theoretical background can be advantageous for an investigator as it lessens the negative effects on valid researches.
As a part of understanding the processes of reporting on results, I have made use of semi-structured interviews. This makes a majority of the questions open-ended and content- focused, giving me the possibility to redirect the conversation should it veer away from the topic (Hay, 2010, p. 110). This focused method proved useful as interviews were limited by time constraints. The interviewees’ descriptions of results have been collected, analyzed and used as examples to shed light on or enhance different topics.
To make contact with the informants, I used the “snowball recruitment” method (Hay, 2010, p 159), asking initial contacts to suggest and connect me with other relevant
informants. Contact with NCA was initiated through an acquaintance from my internship in Vietnam. Contact with Norfund began through a faculty professor, as the Communication Advisor had studied at the center. It is believed that access would have been granted without these connections, but that introductions through connections made the process easier.
When choosing people to interview, main questions considered were: Who will be interviewed, why, and for how long will the interviews last? Given that the topic is about results, contacts connected me to the leader of the Division of Program Quality (PQ) in NCA, and the Grant Facility Manager & Development Advisor (GMDA) in Norfund. To balance the selection and input, the Head of PQ put me in contact with the Advisor for Methods and Results for NCA. In Norfund, the GMDA arranged a meeting with the Head of the
Department for Strategy and Analysis in Norfund. During the process, it became evident as
writing about how results are published that it would be fruitful to meet with a
communication advisor from each organization. Because Norad is NCA’s biggest funder, I also contacted the Director of the Civil Society Department (CS) in Norad. We had met on an earlier occasion in Vietnam, and I chose to re-establish this connection. By contrast, Norfund does not receive resources from Norad, but MFA. However, because Norad has great
influence over state guidelines for reporting, it seemed beneficial to talk with someone from Norad.
Interviews with representatives from Norad’s Evaluation Department and Department for Methods and Results, external consultants, and MFA were also considered. However, due to the thesis’ scope and time restrictions, informants were chosen more strategically. I also reached a point of saturation, where talking to more people seemed superfluous.
Nevertheless, there was a challenge in scheduling interviews, as the gathering of data took place primarily from May through July, a period which coincides with the Norwegian general staff’s summer holidays. An overview of the people interviewed is listed in Appendix 1.
Interviews were held from May through September 2012. Informants were presented with the interview topic in advance, and oral consent was given. The interviews lasted approximately thirty minutes to one hour, and were held in meeting rooms available at each of the organization’s office. Because the interviews were semi-structured, interview questions were printed out in advance. All interviews were held in Norwegian and recorded with a smartphone, also under consent.
A smartphone was deliberately chosen over a traditional recorder for two reasons. On a practical level, the smartphone was chosen for its high sound quality and ease of ability to transfer between devices. Further, as smartphones have become common in daily life it was hoped that the phone would better blend into the environment than would a traditional voice recorder. Voice recorders could have made the informants more conscious of the interview
setting, and less willing or able to speak candidly. Few notes were taken during the interview, as it could distract the informants. All interviews were transcribed in Norwegian within a couple of days and stored electronically with the purpose of analyzing statements later.
Quotes used in the thesis are translated from Norwegian to English, and sent to the informants for approval.
In addition to the textual research and interviews, I also attended seminars and debates arranged or attended by the organizations. These meetings gave me the chance to experience the organizations’ public profiling, as well the opportunity to introduce myself to NCA and Norfund. For an overview of attended seminars and meetings, see Appendix 4.
2.4 Methodological remarks and reflections
The thesis does come with certain limitations. Chosen to study the perceptions and responses to results, I primarily contacted people working with evaluation, results and communication.
In retrospect, it could also have been fruitful to talk with someone from NCA who had worked with the evaluation reports of the EDFIs. Although not directly linked to reporting practices, it could have given additional insight of how NCA understands results, and if the report had been followed up after it had been published. Additionally, I would like to make three methodological remarks with regard to research design.
First, my 2011 internship with NCA Vietnam can be seen as a strength or weakness.
However, the internship did provide information and knowledge of internal routines and guidelines used by NCA. First-hand knowledge of practices and methods is a great advantage. On the other hand, if routines have changed, my experiences are outdated.
Although I no longer have any contact or affiliation with NCA, it is believed that the
internship may raise questions of validity and objectivity. To avoid such issues, authors such
as Yin (2009) and Punch (2010) emphasize the importance of self-awareness. A clear project design and chain of evidence increases the paper’s transparency and legitimacy.
Secondly, a good interview is often based on a common understanding of the concepts between interviewer and informant. This not only keeps the conversation flowing but also hinders misunderstandings. In this study, not mastering the worlds of the informants could sometimes be a challenge, as some concepts and abbreviations were initially unfamiliar to me. This asymmetrical relationship (Hay, 2010, p. 32) became painfully clear during an interview in which one of the informants expressed that he or she had the impression that I had not read the material thoroughly enough and had therefore missed important points.
Before the interview, I had deliberately prepared open questions on routines and processes on which I wished the informant to elaborate. This informant interpreted such questions as poor preparation. It is worth noting, however, that coming from outside and asking seemingly
“stupid” or “naïve” questions is not without its advantages. It forces the informant to reflect upon things that insiders might take for granted. The aforementioned incident caused the informant expand on certain subjects, giving me as an outsider, more insight than I would have had based upon texts alone. For this reason, I found it important to clarify any ambiguities during interviews and speak openly on any issues that were unclear.
Third, using a laboratory approach for exploring the organizations (Latour, 1996;
1999, Asdal, 2008c), my initial point of departure was to study how NCA and Norfund understood evaluation work. This is also visible in my interview guides, as the term
“evaluation” is prominent throughout the interview outlines. As I got further into the analysis new aspects revealed, forcing me to go back and forth in the material. However, during the interviews, and while analyzing empirical data, I was directed towards the organizations’
perception of “results” as the organizations were talking more about outcomes and results
than evaluation. Consequently, the focus shifted from studying evaluation to results. Thus, the case study can be characterized not as a linear, but circular and explorative process.
3 Introducing key organizations
This chapter begins with a short background presentation of NCA and Norfund, followed by a study of the organizational structure in terms teams working with results. This section also looks at NCA’s and Norfund’s relationship with the government agencies, in this case Norad and MFA.
To fully understand the workings of each organization it is necessary to understand the contexts to which they relate and respond. For many NGOs, funds come from official and private donors. This is true of NCA, as Norad and MFA contribute 58% of their income budget (Norad, n.d.), in addition to private funding. By contrast, Norfund is owned by the state, and funds are allocated through the Storting (Parliament) and MFA. For comparative reasons, this assignment will focus on the relationship between the organizations and the state, as the state as funder becomes a contact point for NCA and Norfund (Asdal, 2008b).
3.1 The Norwegian Church Aid
3.1.1 Background
What started as a fundraising campaign in 1947 has today become one of Norway’s largest NGOs working with issues of development and cooperation. In 2011, NCA had a total of 819.1 million NOK in acquired funds (Tønnesen, 2007, p. 17; NCA, 2012a, p. 86). In terms of resources, this makes NCA one of Norway’s biggest NGOs, along with the Norwegian Refugee Council, the Norwegian Red Cross, the Norwegian People’s Aid, and Save the Children (Norad, n.d.).
NCA’s mandate is to be “an ecumenical, diakonal [sic] and humanitarian organization mandated by churches and Christian organizations in Norway to work for a just world, by
both empowering the poor and challenging the wealthy and powerful” (NCA, 2011a). The involvement of rights-holders is a central part of NCA’s work methods, as they try to cooperate with local and national partners whenever possible. Here, emergency response, long-term aid, and advocacy are identified as key focus areas. This is again divided into twelve global programs as illustrated below. The upper squares indicate the focus areas, and the squares below represent NCA’s programs:
Figure 3.1 - NCA's Global Programs (NCA, 2011a, p. 9).
To match each program, NCA launched in 2011 twelve expected outcomes under the name Selected Output Indicators (SOIs). In order to improve the quality of work and reports, each of the thirty-three COs can choose a maximum of five programs. By selecting a program, the CO is committed to report on the related SOI to the main office in Norway (Berge, 2012). For instance, if a CO chooses “Climate Justice” as their focus area, and “Climate change and mitigation” as their program, the SOI they would have to report back to the main office would be the “Number of rights-holders with access to sustainable energy solutions” (NCA,
2012a, p. 54). For Vietnam, to give one example, this might be the number of people in NCA’s biogas project. Although the projects will vary from country to country, the indicators are mutual for all COs to report back on. The numbers are then sent to the main office, where they are aggregated and presented on a global level.
While the SOIs have been reported and published, it is worth mentioning that they are still on trial throughout 2012 (NCA, 2012a, p. 7). For a full overview of the expected
outcomes and SOIs, see Appendix 5.
3.1.2 Division for Program Quality
In addition to new indicators, NCA has also undergone an organizational rearrangement to improve communication and to strengthen evaluation processes and results. As part of NCA’s new strategy, the Division for Program Quality (PQ), which used to be a separate and
independent division, is now included under the Division for International Program (DIP) (Berge, 2012). The implementation of a new structure was a decision to increase and secure the program quality in all project segments (NCA, 2011a).
In NCA’s new global strategy, focus on Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation (PME), as well as on reporting results, became NCA’s new priority area (Langhus, 2012). Currently, the DIP has a total staff of approximately fifty people: around thirty of these works for the PQ division. Like the SOIs and global strategy plan, this new rearrangement is also under continuous evaluation. The organization uses both internal and external evaluations to assess implemented work models (Berge, 2012; Langhus, 2012; Wang, 2012). While internal evaluations are discussed for improving workflow, external evaluations are used to see if the implemented projects are understood as successful for outside actors. The new strategy is innovative and has required significant organizational restructuring. Whether this can be
understood as an outcome of political influences or as an internal decision will be further discussed in Chapter 6.
3.1.3 Context and Framework: Norad and MFA
NCA’s relationship with the government dates back to the 1960s, when they initiated a farming project in East Nigeria partially funded by Norad. By the end of the 1960s, NCA became a prominent actor in emergency relief during what is today known as the Nigerian- Biafra War (Tønnesen, 2007).
The relationship between NCA and the government has continued, Norad and MFA constitute approximately 58% of NCA’s total budget. In 2011, 217 million NOK came from Norad, and 209 million NOK from MFA (NCA, 2012a, p. 5). However, the relationship between NCA and Norad is dependent upon certain conditions. For the period 2011 – 2015, Norad and NCA have signed a cooperation contract, named QZA-1070953 (Norad, 2011c).
The contract’s content clarify Norad’s expectations of how the funding should be distributed:
The grant can cover 90% of the Portfolio’s expenditure, excluding Administrative costs. The grant receiver must through annual reports document at least 10% of the Portfolio’s
accounted expenses, exclusive the Administrative costs (Own share) the Recipient has acquired in Norway (Norad, 2011c, p. 2).
Further, the contract states how the money will be distributed, every semi-annual period (Norad, 2011c, p. 3), and how they prefer the results to be presented. In the contract’s Appendix 1, the demands listed are quite general in form: NCA must report on objectives, expected outcomes, results, target groups, and total budget for each year (Norad, 2011c).
With regard to format, NCA has the freedom to determine the layout and construction of the report, as long as the information above is included.
In recent years, Norad and MFA have begun to signal the importance of better and improved results reporting (MFA, 2004; Norad, 2011b; Norad, 2012a; Norad, 2012b). On the one hand, the changes in NCA can be understood as their way of satisfying Norad. On the other, this can also be interpreted as a parallel development created by both the government and the development cooperation organizations. The process of presenting results, as well as the relationship between the state and the organizations, will be further explored in Chapter 5 and 6.
3.2 Norfund
3.2.1 Background
Compared to many of the Norwegian organizations working in development, the Norwegian Investment Fund for Developing Countries (Norfund) is fairly young. Established by the Storting (Parliament) in 1997 as part of the government’s development policy, Norfund works under a special law called the Norfund Act (Norfund, 1997). Their objective is to
“encourage business development and contribute to economic growth and poverty alleviation” (Norfund, n.d.a).
Norfund is also a part of the European Development Finance Institutions (EDFI), a community for DFIs in Europe. Although the DFIs differ in their work methods, such
cooperation makes coordination easier, as the institutions do not overlap in terms of projects.
It also allows the EDFIs to compare methods and practices when working with development effects (Norad, 2012; Frengstad, 2012a).
Norfund’s job is to make investments in high-risk countries more attractive by providing and disposing state capital for companies willing to invest in developing countries (Liland & Kjerland, 2003). This is also reflected in their mandate, which states that Norfund
shall “…establish viable, profitable enterprises that would not otherwise have been
established because of high risk” (Norfund, 1997, p. 3). Instead of using methods found in traditional development cooperation organizations like NCA, Norfund uses an economic approach. By being a responsible investor, Norfund’s aim is to make profitable investments in developing countries (Norfund, 2012a). A rough description of Norfund’s investment process is provided in the illustration below:
Figure 3.2 - Norfund's Project Cycle (Norfund, 2012a, p. 20)
The cycle begins when partners and projects are identified, either through probing the market or being contacted by business associates. During this phase and throughout business
negotiations, projects are systematically screened and analyzed: are the projects in target regions and investment areas? Are they in line with national laws, and are the people running the project responsible? Furthermore, a risk and needs assessment, ESG (Environment, Social
and Governmental considerations), and profitability measures, must be assessed before the Norfund Board can approve the projects (Norfund, 2011a).
Norfund’s four investment areas are: financial institutions, small-medium-sized enterprises funds (SME), renewable energy, and industrial partnerships. These projects are all concentrated in Eastern and Southern Africa, as well as Central America and Southeast Asia (Norfund.no, n.d.a). To secure a financially sustainable investment, Norfund has developed an own exclusion list of activities they do not support due to high risks and/or harmful effects. This list includes businesses or activities involving child labor, production of weapons, prostitution, and tobacco (Norfund, 2011a, p. 17).
Norfund also follow guidelines made by the International Finance Cooperation (IFC), a development institution focused on private sectors in developing countries and a member of the World Bank Group (WBG) (IFC.org, n.d.a). The standards were introduced in 2006, and concern issues such as: 1) the assessing and handling of social and environmental risks, 2) labor legislation and working conditions, 3) efficient use of resources and pollution and contamination prevention, 4) local society’s rights for health and security, 5) land property rights and intermigration, 6) biodiversity and sustainable management of living natural resources, 7) rights of indigenous people, and 8) the preservation and protection of cultural monuments (IFC.org, n.d.b; Norfund, 2011a, p. 17). For Norfund, the aim is “not looking for the ‘perfect enterprise’, but business managers who show the desire and ability to lift these standards over time” (Norfund, 2011a, p 16). Investing in sustainable long-term projects, businesses are able develop gradually and consistently, hence contributing to economic growth.
3.2.2 Division for Strategy and Analysis
As NCA is larger than Norfund, Norfund’s Division for Strategy and Analysis is smaller than NCA’s in terms of staff. The Division for Strategy and Analysis (SA) consists of four staff members: the Director, Communication Advisor, Macro and Development Economist, and Grant Facility Manager and Development Advisor (GMDA). Each employee is responsible for their area of work, although some tasks may overlap and require cooperation
(Norfund.no, n.d.b). Another difference between NCA and Norfund is that Norfund have only hired people with an economic background to work with results analysis and
communication, while the people working in NCA come from different disciplines such as advertising, sociology and political studies. Because the data and information Norfund communicate is technical, knowledge about financial terms and theories is necessary. This is also reflected in their presented material, as they wish to target investors and potential partners who also speak in economic terms. However, because Norfund is a development investor, they find themselves in a position where they have to respond to investors and development workers simultaneously. This will be further explored in Chapter 5.
For collecting information, Norfund uses standardized schemes. It is the Project Managers who are responsible for collecting these from the projects, before sending them to the GMDA for analyzing the development effects (Berg, 2012; Frengstad, 2012). This process will be further explored in Chapter 5.
3.2.3 Context and framework: Norfund and MFA
MFA set Norfund’s budget on an annual basis. This amount has seen a gradual yearly increase until recently: in 2011 Norfund received 6.279 million NOK and in 2012 this sum doubled to 1.05 billion NOK (Norfund, 2012a; MF, 2012b). The budget expansion can be interpreted as a shift in attitudes regarding Norwegian development cooperation. While
traditional NGOs are still the biggest recipients of the annual government budget regarding poverty alleviation and humanitarian aid issues, Norfund’s budget expansion can be
interpreted as the state’s acknowledgement of their work.
Although the Norfund Act from 1997 states MFA as the main owner, the law also releases the state from responsibility and liability of Norfund’s commitments (Norfund.no, n.d.a; Norfund, 1997). This means that the Storting are entitled to provide certain guidelines and update these through their annual allocation letter. These guidelines can be directions on how the money should be spent, but they cannot dictate which specific projects Norfund should invest in. In addition to the annual allocation letter, Norfund is also obligated to meet quarterly with MFA, where status, important incidents, and information are presented (Nafstad, 2012).
3.3 Summary
This chapter has given an overview of the Norwegian Church Aid (NCA) and the Norwegian Investment Fund for Developing Countries (Norfund). The reader was presented with a brief background presentation, followed by a short description of NCA’s Division for Program Quality, and Norfund’s Division for Strategy and Analysis. Additionally, I have also described NCA and Norfund’s relationship to the Norwegian Agency for Development (Norad) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA).
Receiving almost 216 million NOK from Norad and MFA in 2011, NCA is one of the biggest humanitarian NGOs in Norway today. Their work is focused around emergency response, long-term aid and advocacy work, and they cooperate closely with partner
organizations on development projects when working on development projects. As recipients of Norad and MFA’s allocation money, NCA is committed to deliver a report on results to Norad on an annual basis (Norad, 2011c). As demands for measureable results have increased
both internally and from the state, NCA launched a new global strategy in 2011. Here, a new organizational structure, the Division of Program Quality was given more resources, and Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) and reporting on results was given more attention.
Fully funded by the Storting (Parliament) and MFA, Norfund is an investment fund, encouraging business development in high-risk countries. From 2011 to 2012, Norfund almost doubled, as their budget was increased from 6.279 million NOK to 1,05 billion NOK (Norfund, 2012a; MF, 2012b). The organization was established in 1997 under special law, called the Norfund Act (Norfund, 1997). The Act declares MFA as Norfund’s owner, but releases the state from responsibility of Norfund’s commitments (Norfund.no, n.d.a; Norfund 1997). Norfund’s objective is to secure long-term and financially sustainable investments, and contribute to economic growth. The organization itself is smaller than NCA. Their Division of Strategy and Analysis (SA) consist of currently four positions, where the Grant Facility Manager & Development Advisor (GMDA) is responsible for the analyzing of development effects. Because the terminology used in Norfund is technical, the employees in the SA Division mainly have an economic or financial background.
To understand the workings of NCA and Norfund it has been necessary to understand the contexts in which the organizations relate and respond. However, before I go further in exploring the organizations perception and presentations of results, the analytical concepts and tools used for this thesis will be presented.
4 Theoretical framework
Before discussing how the organizations respond and relate to reporting on results, analytical concepts and tools will be presented. Because development cooperation is a complex and diverse field, it becomes difficult to grasp, let alone describe. Therefore, in order to describe these complexities, theories and concepts become useful tools. By enhancing core essences or phenomena, reality is simplified and broken down, and made easier to understand
(Johanessen, Tufte & Veiden, 2006, p. 103).
Borrowing the concept of front- and backstage from Erving Goffman (1959) and the field of sociology, I will study how NCA and Norfund approach results. Although Goffman mainly focused on human interactions, his analytical tools can also be transferred to study teams or organizational interactions (Goffman, 1959, p. 83). Understanding NCA and Norfund’s front- and backstage will give better insight to considerations the organizations must take into account when responding to the growing demands for results. While Goffman is used to study NCA and Norfund, Kristin Asdal’s analysis of political technologies widens the scope by focusing on the contexts in which the organizations and the state are a part of (Asdal, 2008a; Asdal, 2008b; Asdal, 2011a; Asdal, 2011b).
The chapter begins with a short introduction to micro interactionism and symbolic interaction. This is followed by Goffman’s concepts of front- and backstage. Widening the scope, I will use Asdal’s approach to explore how numbers as political technologies influence the interactions and routines between the organizations and the state.
4.1 Goffman’s dramaturgical analysis
In sociology, micro interactionism and the theory of rational choice came into existence around the 1960s as a critique of functionalism, claiming it was too structural and macro- oriented. Under the slogan of George C. Homans, the objective of the micro interactionists and rationalists was to bring “the men back in” (Aakvaag, 2008, p. 63). To study individual actions as conscious choices and considerations, face-to-face interaction became the center of attention. The goal was to study in detail the techniques, procedures, tools, strategies, and methods the actors use when constructing and organizing a meaningful world. Micro interactionism was also split in two directions: social interactionism and phenomenological sociology (Aakvaag, 2008, p. 64). Here, we take a closer look at social interactionism and Goffman’s theories of dramaturgical analysis. Human practices are a result of, and enable mediation between meaning, language, and symbols (Aakvaag, 2008, p. 65).
Although never comfortable with the label “social interactionist,” Goffman’s theories have been an important contribution to the field of sociology. Inspired by George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer, Goffman carried out extensive projects, trying to uncover the micro mechanisms applied when actors use reflexive constructions on social systems.
According to Goffman, face-to-face interaction follows its own spontaneous logic where actors adapt to and change roles according to situation and context (Goffman, 1959).
In his Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Goffman presents the concepts front- and backstage. The front stage is described as “the performance” (Goffman, 1959, p. 32). This is where the actor(s) try to create or maintain a certain impression within the context of which they are part (Goffman, 1959, p. 59). Trying to stage a character is what Goffman calls
“impression management” (Goffman, 1959, p. 203), and can be steered by things like body language, clothing, or vocal tone. How the actors perform depends on the region of behavior – the place where the performance is given (Goffman, 1959, pp. 109 – 110). The backstage is
where the preparations take place. The audience is often prevented from entering backstage to see what goes on, as the performances are not intended for them (Goffman, 1959, p. 231).
As Goffman’s analysis can also be applied to study groups in the form of teams or
organizations, I have chosen to use his concepts of back- and front stage to study NCA and Norfund (Goffman, 1959, pp. 83 – 108). For NCA and Norfund, routines for gathering and analyzing information are understood as the organizations’ backstage. Body language, vocal tone, and clothing are in this case replaced with layout, organizational identity, and public profile. Language, symbols, and texts are performed for their main audience: the public, investors, MFA, and Norad. Hence, the dramaturgic self-representation becomes an
important instrument when facing the public. Wanting power to define a situation or leave a certain impression, the actors must perform and play certain roles for each other. Keeping the stages separated becomes a central part of the act. Should, for instance, an internal
disagreement become public, the front stage can be disrupted and give the audience a negative impression (Goffman, 1959, p. 92).
Although an attractive theory, Goffman’s concept does come with certain limitations.
First, the situations are reduced to single events appearing from nowhere, making it difficult to explain the political, historic, and cultural processes that have led to the situation or action.
Secondly, the spontaneous logic downgrades the actor’s motivational factors for action and the ability to plan ahead is gone, making life stories and identities redundant (Aakvaag, 2008, pp. 91 – 94).
Goffman’s dramaturgical approach is useful for understanding the preparations and presentations of NCA and Norfund. However, this approach alone can lead to an inadequate understanding of social interactions. Investigating how political technologies in political institutions link or delink political events, STS studies how science and technology enable
action (Bijker, Bal, Hendriks, 2009, p. 9; Asdal, 2011a, pp. 221 – 222). In the following chapter, Asdal’s study of economic sciences as a political technology will be explored.
4.2 Numbers as political technology
4.2.1 What is politics of technology?
What calls for our attention are the technologies of politics – the way in which an imbroglio of science, technology and politics takes a part in producing, rendering real and visible, its object of intervention – while taking politics, that is, the practices of bureaucracy or administration, as the main site or entry of study (Asdal, 2008a, p. 124).
For Asdal, to presume that power comes from one central instance is not an exhaustive theory, as the understanding of power as linear action takes control and authority for granted (Asdal, 2008b; 2011a). When power interacts with knowledge and discourse, the discourse contributes to the production of reality, subjectivity, collective identities and social facts (Asdal, 2011a, p. 215). Accordingly, it is power, the technologies of power, and the
constellations between power and knowledge that characterize modernity. Thus, institutional practices become important because it is through them that social realities are established (Asdal, 2011a, p. 216).
Instead of taking a normative stance on political ideas and theories, STS takes one step back by studying the interactions and networks between politics and technology. It also emphasizes that different understandings between institutions and organizations can result in different viewpoints in arguments or political disputes. Hence, political technologies are not only the studies of techniques for domination and power, but also the tools for public involvement and deliberation. Debates and discussions do not only find place in closed political institutions, as they can also be discussed in public spaces (Asdal, 2008b, pp. 11 – 13; Asdal, 2011a, p. 212). In other words, technology is not only about advice and
persuasion, but also about the interactions between the people involved, their interests, values, ideas, and ideologies (Asdal, 2011a, p. 211).
4.2.2 Numbers as political technologies
Politics and government can rarely be reduced to one interest or meaning, as several actors and networks are often involved (Asdal, 2011a, p. 232). On such occasions, political technologies contribute to create and/or establish the situation as actors can use them to initiate or end an action or discussion. Written documents are a common device. White papers, guidelines, instructions, and documents are used as tools for creating norms to disseminate information and open discussions (Asdal, 2011a, p. 213). Thus, politics is as much about the technical devices making it possible to govern, as it is governing strategies.
However, as these devices and practices also enable participation, the relationship between the organizations and the state is not only top-down, but also bottom-up (Asdal, 2011a, pp.
211 – 212). This indicates that when it comes to political discussions, it is rarely a question of one interest versus another, but confrontations between several competing desires.
One tool in political technologies is the use of numbers and statistics, as they promote or oppose issues by making it possible to govern, interact, or create controversies (Asdal, 2011a, p. 212) 2. As Asdal illustrates when mapping out Norwegian environmental disputes during the post-war period, numbers played a decisive role in settling disputes of pollution and tracing the reason for the increasing amount of acid rain. As the case was discussed between the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, the Ministry of Environment and
2 In Norwegian, Asdal uses the term “Tallteknologi” as a collective term for numerical political technologies. Currently, there are no good translations for this in English as the dimensions of
political technology fall short when trying to find a good rendition of the term. In short, “tallteknologi”
refers to the numerical technologies used in order to create or establish an issue or case. This may be in form of statistics, annual and emissions reports, papers of accounts and balances, and so forth.
Ministry of Finance, numbers became a productive tool for shaping the discussions of emission levels in Norway (Asdal, 2008a; Asdal, 2011a).
A common misconception is that numbers are able to produce effects and enhance authority. In reality, it is rather the frameworks in which numbers are used that give them the power to constitute an issue. What become objects of dispute are often a result of
administrative, technical, and scientific interventions and interactions (Asdal, 2011a, p. 98;
217; 233; Asdal, 2011b, pp. 1 – 2). As we shall see in Chapter 6, development presentations have taken a turn from promoting qualitative success stories, to a quantification issue of social processes and physical sizes.
4.2.3 Numbers as trust and objectivity
Numbers are understood to give accurate presentations of the world, making statistics, budgets, and diagrams crucial technologies to strengthen arguments (Asdal, 2011b, pp. 1 – 3). Calculating practices can evoke conviction or skepticism. Because numbers are believed to be detached from personal interests, they have become a legitimate technology for creating trust and reliance (Asdal, 2011a, p. 75; pp. 102 – 103).
However, numbers can also be a challenge. First, numbers do not automatically lead to action. People may agree that poverty alleviation is important, and trust the numbers presented of people living under the poverty line, but this does not automatically create a collective social action (Asdal, 2011a, p. 103). Second, getting too absorbed in numbers and their technologies can distract the organization from their primary objectives (Asdal, 2011a, p. 84). This was also a concern when talking to NCA and Norfund. Although they understood measurable results as fruitful in terms of organizational and methodical development, the organizations experienced the increasing demands for comparative results as overwhelming.
In Chapter 6, these challenged will be studied further.
4.3 Theories applied to case
Before moving on to the main body of this study, certain concepts will be presented to substantiate the selection of theoretical concepts and framework through (1) study of the materiality of results, (2) study of how the state and the organizations use numbers as a tool and instrument for interacting, setting agendas, and influencing the context of which
development cooperation organizations are a part.
In Bruno Latour’s Aramis or the Love of Technology (1996) and Pandora’s Hope (1999), it is pointed out that all projects begin as systems of signs, texts, and language.
Showing the reader that an idea can become reality just as much as reality can become an idea, Latour studies how the relationships between signs, objects, and events are uncertain and fluid (Latour, 1996). The use of Goffman’s concepts of back- and front stage is inspired by Latour’s methods for approaching situations. By turning the world into a laboratory, Latour follows a case from inception, and unravels the many steps the materials take before being transformed and translated in order to become a finished product (Latour, 1999;
Rottenburg 2009).
Goffman’s concepts of back- and front stage is also visible in Collins and Pinch’s The Golem at Large, where they illustrate how scientists try during experiments, and show during demonstrations (Collins & Pinch, 2010, pp. 62 – 64). The concept trying is situated in private spaces, the backstage of the organizations. This is where experiments take place, and where scientists test theories and methods. When the exploration is finished, discoveries are presented to the outside world. Collins and Pinch’s understanding of demonstrations is very similar to Goffman’s concepts of front stage and impression management, as “a good
demonstration is not a matter of finding out unknown things, but arranging a convincing performance” (Collins & Pinch, 2010, p. 63).
The thesis does not take a stand on which practices are best, which are right, or which are wrong. Rather, this is a study of how NCA and Norfund have chosen to respond to the demands for results in development cooperation. Understanding how and why NCA and Norfund manage results is the first step in this thesis. The second is to understand the influence and interactions of results and the reporting of results. The aim of this thesis is to study these particular organizations’ perspectives and understandings of results, and to investigate the political influences from the state. Here, Barbara Czarniawska’s (1999) studies of organizational behavior provide an excellent example of how management behavior is no straightforward process, but highly influenced by social practices and norms (Czarniawska, 1999, p. 8). Further, David Mosse (2005) and Richard Rottenburg (2009) offer great contributions for understanding the complexity of challenges in the development sector through a STS perspective. Rottenburg’s concept of translations is particularly interesting, and will be further explored in Chapter 5.2.
Another valuable contribution is Roger Riddell’s study of development cooperation.
In Does Foreign Aid Work?, Riddell analyzes and studies the many challenges of
development aid, including the reporting on results. In addition to the difficulties related to making social processes measureable, Riddell identifies lack of resources and biased information as methodological challenges. Collecting data for results can be a demanding process, which some organizations lack. This applies especially to smaller organizations that may lack the capability and capacity to implement exhaustive reporting routines. In addition, information presented to the public is not unbiased cross-sections of the organizations’ work, but often success stories specifically chosen to portray their work positively (Riddell, 2007, pp. 168 – 169; pp. 270 – 278).
These challenges, which will be further explored in Chapter 6, are essential to understanding why development actors are discussing methods for reporting on results. Studying the
routines and the context development actors find themselves a part of, this thesis’ foundation is based on Kristin Asdal’s analysis on political technologies and Goffman’s dramaturgical approach. Whereas Asdal studies political technologies and management of nature and emission, many of her observations and interpretations are applicable to understanding how demands for measurable results form the frameworks for the development organizations. In order to manage the amount of project information, the projects are organized into structured documents of matrices and tables. Thus, the use of Goffman and Asdal complete each other.
Here, the day-to-day routines in NCA and Norfund understood to be non-political issues of checks and balances were uncovered as political practices of policy and constructions of disputes. Relating concepts from sociology with STS to grasp the processes and layers that form reporting practices, sheds light on the intricate practices of the organizations.
